15/03/2021 10:08, Andrew Rybchenko: > On 3/15/21 11:55 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 15/03/2021 09:43, Andrew Rybchenko: > >> On 3/15/21 10:54 AM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>> 15/03/2021 08:18, Andrew Rybchenko: > >>>> On 3/12/21 8:46 PM, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > >>>>> --- a/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c > >>>>> +++ b/lib/librte_ethdev/rte_flow.c > >>>>> @@ -255,18 +255,19 @@ rte_flow_ops_get(uint16_t port_id, struct > >>>>> rte_flow_error *error) > >>>>> > >>>>> if (unlikely(!rte_eth_dev_is_valid_port(port_id))) > >>>>> code = ENODEV; > >>>>> - else if (unlikely(!dev->dev_ops->filter_ctrl || > >>>>> - dev->dev_ops->filter_ctrl(dev, > >>>>> - > >>>>> RTE_ETH_FILTER_GENERIC, > >>>>> - RTE_ETH_FILTER_GET, > >>>>> - &ops) || > >>>>> - !ops)) > >>>>> - code = ENOSYS; > >>>>> + else if (unlikely(dev->dev_ops->flow_ops_get == NULL)) > >>>>> + code = ENOTSUP; > > It is described as: > -ENOTSUP: valid but unsupported rule specification (e.g. > partial bit-masks are unsupported). > So, it looks different. May be it is really better to keep > ENOSYS. > > >>>>> else > >>>>> - return ops; > >>>>> - rte_flow_error_set(error, code, RTE_FLOW_ERROR_TYPE_UNSPECIFIED, > >>>>> - NULL, rte_strerror(code)); > >>>>> - return NULL; > >>>>> + code = dev->dev_ops->flow_ops_get(dev, &ops); > >>>>> + if (code == 0 && ops == NULL) > >>>>> + code = EACCES; > >>>> It looks something new. I think it should be mentioned in flow_ops_get > >>>> type documentation (similar to eth_promiscuous_enable_t) and > >>>> rte_flow_validate() etc functions > >>>> return values description. > >>> > >>> It is an internal function used only in rte_flow.c. > >>> The real consequence is to set rte_errno in a lot of rte_flow API. > >>> Not sure there is a good way to document the code details. > >>> Other codes are not documented in rte_flow.h > >> > >> First of all it is a behaviour of the flow_ops_get callback and > >> driver developers should know that it is a legal to return 0 and > >> ops==NULL and know what it means. > > > > The combination code 0 and ops NULL is not new. > > Previously, it was returning ENOSYS. > > I've just given a more meaningful error code: EACCES, > > while replacing ENOSYS with ENOTSUP for the other case. > > Yes, exactly. What I'm trying to say that it would be > helpful to make it a bit more transparent to PMD developers. > Yes, it was not documented before, I agree. I think it is > a good time to improve documentation. > > >> Second, it is visible as rte_flow_validate() (and other functions > >> which use rte_flow_ops_get()) return value value which has > >> special meaning. So, should be documented. > > > > Yes, I should update the API doc where ENOSYS was mentioned. > > Or probably better: I should keep the error code ENOSYS > > and do not break API. > > Preference? > > Good question. I think we should not distinguish NULL callback > and NULL ops returned by not-NULL callback. So, I think > keeping ENOSYS is the best option here.
OK, thank you for the review. So the conclusion is: keep ENOSYS and document NULL ops case.